Are You A Capitalist Scumbag?

[Irish Exit]

This folks is a fine example of the logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. Like most false dichotomies it is utterly false.

It also isn't a false dichotomy, troll.

[Irish Exit]

The land equivalent of the CAA and the CWA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It defines what hazardous waste are and their treatment standards including land disposal restrictions (LDR).

We were discussing the documentary in which the need for a Clean Soil Act was being discussed in the particular segment the person I was replying to got the information they were referencing in their post. Since you apparently did not see it, one of the issues was that the EPA, which is in charge of the RCRA, refused to accept peer reviewed research showing that one particular compound was toxic at half their allowed rate when the EPA's allowable rate apparently wasn't ever really even studied to begin with when it was set for the chemical.

[Mott the Hoople]

It also isn't a false dichotomy, troll.

It is completely a false choice. We do not have to choose between regulatory protection and paying competitive wages to educators. Just to clarify something. I'm a Hoople...and not just any Hoople. I'm "The" Hoople and I aint no damned troll!

[Mott the Hoople]

We were discussing the documentary in which the need for a Clean Soil Act was being discussed in the particular segment the person I was replying to got the information they were referencing in their post. Since you apparently did not see it, one of the issues was that the EPA, which is in charge of the RCRA, refused to accept peer reviewed research showing that one particular compound was toxic at half their allowed rate when the EPA's allowable rate apparently wasn't ever really even studied to begin with when it was set for the chemical.

You're right. I didn't see the documentary (there was no link posted to it). I'd have to see that to comment on the specifics of the compound in question.

My point is that RCRA all ready provides pollution prevention standards for land via its land disposal restrictions and treatment technology standards. Those standards for land disposal restrictions are established by the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulatory limit for regulated components which are arbitrarily set at 100 times SDWA standards for regulated components and when considering leach rates are pretty high standards of protection.

For example, the SDWA standard for lead in water in 8 micrograms/liter (8 parts per billion). The TCLP limit, therefore, is set at 8 milligrams/liter (8 parts per million).

Post a link to the documentary and I can give you a more specific informed response as this is what I do for a living.

[coolzone]

So, we should throw-out all of the actual case studies and just have faith in your mythical socialism, because the socialisms found in the real world aren't representative of how my ideology is "supposed" to work?

There are no "case studies" when it comes to capitalism. And even if there were, they would just be BS written by capitalists to support their cult. A cult that has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with criminality and greed. The thing is, socialist societies such as what China and Russia were famous for operated in the same way. And they still do. Though socialist countries tried to keep aristocracy at a minimum by limiting the amount of wealth people could accumulate.
Slavery is the basis for all of the societies that I have heard that ever existed. Or still exist. They just use different terms for it. Also, most creatures that have ever lived or still live seek status and power. (That includes humans) Which makes it easier for them to gain what most other creatures also seek. Which is getting as much as they can with as little effort as possible.
These are the reasons why my idea of government is "mythical." But it can be a reality. All it takes is a sane judgement of what the right thing is and to do it. What is that right thing? I gave a link to a book around here. Read it. It points out how a true democracy should work.

[zymurgy]

capitalism is the best way to handle scarcity of resources

If you think you have a better solution, it's because you are a retard unable to see the flaws in your "better system".

[zymurgy]

There are no "case studies" when it comes to capitalism. And even if there were, they would just be BS written by capitalists to support their cult. A cult that has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with criminality and greed. The thing is, socialist societies such as what China and Russia were famous for operated in the same way. And they still do. Though socialist countries tried to keep aristocracy at a minimum by limiting the amount of wealth people could accumulate.
Slavery is the basis for all of the societies that I have heard that ever existed. Or still exist. They just use different terms for it. Also, most creatures that have ever lived or still live seek status and power. (That includes humans) Which makes it easier for them to gain what most other creatures also seek. Which is getting as much as they can with as little effort as possible.
These are the reasons why my idea of government is "mythical." But it can be a reality. All it takes is a sane judgement of what the right thing is and to do it. What is that right thing? I gave a link to a book around here. Read it. It points out how a true democracy should work.

you are just a class warfare dipshit

greed is not a bad thing. Individuals trying to get a better product, or a lower price are the ones putting pressure on those that produce to produce more effectively.

whether rich or poor, individuals trying to get more from less is a net positive. idiots like you vilify what needs to happen because you are stupid and don't see the benefits because of said stupidity.

you have nothing to offer society. fuck off retard

[coolzone]

How many years did it take to get Exxon to pay anything for the Valdez oil spill? It was over a decade. As was shown in the documentary, they had a Monsanto plant, a chemical plant (Dow I think it was) and a sewage treatment plant all in the same stretch of river. If you do not have people constantly monitoring, you may not be able to connect the pollution to the proper party. In addition, the documentary went into detail about self-reporting, third party companies faking the data they were supposed to be gathering, etc etc. The only way you stop that is with DEQ or whoever doing the actual monitoring and inspections. Some of this is also a zero sum game because with public utilities being part of the mix, you have the government fining the government. My city has been fined a few times I recall in recent years for wastewater reaching the river when heavy precipitation events flooded tanks and ponds. In addition to the inspectors, you also have to have the lawyers, etc to do the enforcement actions, appeals, etc. And this is just one industry. You have food processing plants that not only need inspectors for food safety (who also operate with the same self-reporting regimen) but also are big players (or potentially) in water contamination. We have one that had the roof blow off the building used to collect just the solid wastewater by-products of food production that cannot be put into the sewage system. That stuff has to go somewhere.

I don't think EXXON ended up paying anything for their oil spill. At least it was next to nothing. That is one of the failings of our capitalist system. We could go on and on about all the particular problems. But it would go nowhere. The system just needs to change. From the ground up. The foundation for that change is in the book I gave a link to.
But getting back to paying for things, they could get a hobo off the street to look at things and know; "It shouldn't be that way." And he could do it with a company car and being paid a minimum wage. Though that person would need to be accompanied by another person. That person's job would be to keep anybody at the company from saying anything to the inspector. Because you know what they would be saying is "Take this money."
Also, I used to be on welfare. I would have welcomed such a job. Rather than having the state constantly punishing me in some way for being on welfare. But it wasn't my fault there were no jobs. Also, I used to get under $5000.00 a year on welfare. But at the same time, the state was fine with paying something around $26,000 a year to keep somebody in jail. The last time I looked, New York state was paying something around $160,000 a year to keep somebody in jail.
Another thing is that I take it you saw the documentary, "The Corporation." Though I don't agree with everything he says, Michael Moore did a few good ones. One was, "Capitalism: A love story." Another one was, "Sicko." Another was, "Where to invade." Or maybe it was "where to invade next." I don't remember right off hand.

[Fentoine Lum]

Government is one of the worse polluters in communist nations, so switching to socialism accomplishes nothing.

Concentrated corporate wealth and power will be our salvation.

[Fentoine Lum]

I don't think EXXON ended up paying anything for their oil spill. At least it was next to nothing. That is one of the failings of our capitalist system. We could go on and on about all the particular problems. But it would go nowhere. The system just needs to change. From the ground up. The foundation for that change is in the book I gave a link to.
But getting back to paying for things, they could get a hobo off the street to look at things and know; "It shouldn't be that way." And he could do it with a company car and being paid a minimum wage. Though that person would need to be accompanied by another person. That person's job would be to keep anybody at the company from saying anything to the inspector. Because you know what they would be saying is "Take this money."
Also, I used to be on welfare. I would have welcomed such a job. Rather than having the state constantly punishing me in some way for being on welfare. But it wasn't my fault there were no jobs. Also, I used to get under $5000.00 a year on welfare. But at the same time, the state was fine with paying something around $26,000 a year to keep somebody in jail. The last time I looked, New York state was paying something around $160,000 a year to keep somebody in jail.
Another thing is that I take it you saw the documentary, "The Corporation." Though I don't agree with everything he says, Michael Moore did a couple good ones. One was, "Capitalism: A love story." The other was, "Where to invade." Or maybe it was "where to invade next." I don't remember right off hand.

Our predatory capitalist healthcare system is a travesty.

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...-other-nations

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr.../#486bbd6f576f

Major Findings
• Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.
• Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
• Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
• Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.
• Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ.../mirror-mirror

No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.
A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.
The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.
The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.
One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.
"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-he...t-so-good.html

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...0064#t=article

Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...ge-disparities

One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.
The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154484/

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.
"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3bea55276072

US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com...fficiency.html

he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.
The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.
Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.
Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...17-column.html
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-c...veloped-world/

[zymurgy]

I already know the op is a moron of epic proportions

Have him/her/it explain how we price goods and services without capitalism?

next, who/how/what decides when we need another grocery store without capitalism?

This moron doesn't have the intellect to weigh on on these subjects. he/she/it doesn't get how the world works. the problem is he/she/it is a loser in this system, and rather then look inward and see hi/she/it is a loser, they blame the system, not themselves.

[Nordberg]

Capitalism is a fine start. But the ownership class wants to max profits. Just that. No care about damage they do . They also naturally morph into oligopoly on the way to monopoly. The competition we once had, provided price wars, product improvement and good customer service fall away when competition melts away. That is where we are now. The government is the only power that used to be able to stand up to corporate power. That too is fading away. The concept of corporations are people is part of that,. Then, case after case that the Supreme Court decided in favor of corporations are another. Corporations and the wealthy no longer have brakes on their greed and corruption. The power of the people to keep them in line is gone.

We need another teddy Roosevelt. He was the trust buster who told us what a danger the wealthy could be to the American system. He installed the inheritance tax to prevent the formation of powerful endless dynasties. He made speeches about fighting the power of the plutocrats. Those days are gone. The new America will not serve the citizens.

[Fentoine Lum]

Capitalism is a fine start. But the ownership class wants to max profits. Just that. No care about damage they do . They also naturally morph into oligopoly on the way to monopoly. The competition we once had, provided price wars, product improvement and good customer service fall away when competition melts away. That is where we are now. The government is the only power that used to be able to stand up to corporate power. That too is fading away. The concept of corporations are people is part of that,. Then, case after case that the Supreme Court decided in favor of corporations are another. Corporations and the wealthy no longer have brakes on their greed and corruption. The power of the people to keep them in line is gone.

We need another teddy Roosevelt. He was the trust buster who told us what a danger the wealthy could be to the American system. He installed the inheritance tax to prevent the formation of powerful endless dynasties. He made speeches about fighting the power of the plutocrats. Those days are gone. The new America will not serve the citizens.

America does not serve the citizenry by design, go back and review the Powell Memorandum.

[Irish Exit]

I don't think EXXON ended up paying anything for their oil spill. At least it was next to nothing. That is one of the failings of our capitalist system. We could go on and on about all the particular problems. But it would go nowhere. The system just needs to change. From the ground up. The foundation for that change is in the book I gave a link to.
But getting back to paying for things, they could get a hobo off the street to look at things and know; "It shouldn't be that way." And he could do it with a company car and being paid a minimum wage. Though that person would need to be accompanied by another person. That person's job would be to keep anybody at the company from saying anything to the inspector. Because you know what they would be saying is "Take this money."
Also, I used to be on welfare. I would have welcomed such a job. Rather than having the state constantly punishing me in some way for being on welfare. But it wasn't my fault there were no jobs. Also, I used to get under $5000.00 a year on welfare. But at the same time, the state was fine with paying something around $26,000 a year to keep somebody in jail. The last time I looked, New York state was paying something around $160,000 a year to keep somebody in jail.
Another thing is that I take it you saw the documentary, "The Corporation." Though I don't agree with everything he says, Michael Moore did a few good ones. One was, "Capitalism: A love story." Another one was, "Sicko." Another was, "Where to invade." Or maybe it was "where to invade next." I don't remember right off hand.

I don't watch anything by Michael Moore. He is a charlatan. Pretending to be for the little guy from his mansions has been been a profitable racket for him.

[coolzone]

True, my point is that getting it right is not based on whether a nation has a socialist or capitalist system but what its priorities are.

You speak the truth. Ever see the movie "A beautiful mind." It was about a mathematician. Apparently it used to be the accepted rule that the best way to help others is to help yourself. The mathematician disproved that. What amazes me is that it took a mathematician to do it. To me, just common sense should have told anybody that helping yourself in a society isn't the best way to help society.
I am reminded of Andrew Carnegie. He thought that the long working hours and poor working conditions (along with low pay of course) was just survival of the fittest. As if he was actually doing mankind a favor! But what he was actually doing was stuffing his pockets with as much money as they could hold. (I know, it was vastly more than just that)
Priorities indeed need to change. It is the people who must come first. It is difficult to do with so many seeing people as sheep and themselves as shepherds. People mist be happy. Though I am not advocating being poor, I have heard of many people in poor countries being asked if they are happy. Most say they are. Basically, people only really need what they really need. But under our system, it is constantly being shoved down people's throats what they need to be happy. Which is actually to make the manufacturers who sell their BS products happy.